MANJAY KUMAR YADAV vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to quash the impugned order dated 19.02.2018 (Annexure P/1) whereby three persons have

been appointed on contractual basis at the office of Tehsildar, Manendragarh, District Korea.

The grievance of the petitioner is that, the petitioner has been working with the respondents on contract basis since 2006. Initially he was appointed

as part time Driver and subsequently engaged on part time Dak Runner and thereafter from 2015 onwards he has been working against the vacant

sanctioned post of Process Server in Korea district.

The engagement of the petitioner was initially for a fixed period of 6 months and which subsequently continued periodically.

The grievance of the petitioner is that his services has been discontinued and in his place three persons whose name reflect in Annexure P/1 have

been appointed. This according to the petitioner is malafide on the part of the Additional Collector, Korea and that the petitioner's discontinuance

amounts to stigmatic removal as there is certain adverse remarks made by the Tehsildar, Manendragarh, to the Collector in respect of conduct of the

petitioner.

Be that as it may, what cannot be brushed aside is the fact that the substantive status of the petitioner was a contractual employee and that the

contractual employee continues in employment till the contract period exist as per the contract. The moment the contract period is over, no substantive

or indefeasible right is created in favour of the petitioner. That, the services of a contractual employee automatically stands discontinued on the

culmination of the contract period.

There cannot be a right conferred in favour of the petitioner for a direction to the respondents to continue with his contractual engagement beyond

the period of contract. Further, the correspondence made by the Tehsildar to the Collector by itself would not make non renewal of contract or

removal of the petitioner stigmatic. If the services of the petitioner is not found satisfactory, the department has every right to discontinue him after the

contract period is over. In the instant case also it appears that the petitioner's services have not been found satisfactory for any specific reasons. Since

no specific reason has been assigned, it cannot be presumed to be stigmatic merely because there is some correspondence made by the Tehsildar,

Manendragarh to Collector, Korea.

Given the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the substantive status of the petitioner, this court does not find strong case made out

calling for interference with the impugned order which is an order of appointment in favour of the respondents No.5 to 7.

The writ petition thus being devoid of merit deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.

Reluctance to entertain this petition by this court would not preclude the petitioner from being considered for appointment for any subsequent period

by the respondents. Neither should the petitioner's removal or discontinuance be treated as stigma in any manner.